Nevada Background Checks for Gun Purchases, Question 1 (2016)

Voting on Firearms
Ballot Measures
	By state
	By year
	Not on ballot

2016 measures
	November 8
	Question 1
	Question 2
	Question 3
	Question 4
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

Nevada Question 1
	Election date; November 8, 2016
	Topic; Firearms
	Status; Approved
Type; State statute	Origin; Citizens

The Nevada Background Checks for Gun Purchases Initiative, also known as Question 1, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Nevada as an indirect initiated state statute. Voters approved the measure. According to then-Attorney General Adam Laxalt (R), Question 1 was not enforceable because the ballot initiative required the FBI to run the background checks. On February 15, 2019, Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) signed Senate Bill 143 to require the state, rather than the FBI, to run background checks.

A yes vote supported requiring firearm transfers to go through a licensed gun dealer. Certain transfers, including temporary transfers and those between immediate family members, would be exempted.

A no vote opposed this proposal requiring firearm transfers to go through a licensed gun dealer.

Aftermath

AG Laxalt and FBI on enforcement of Question 1

On December 28, 2016, Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt (R) said the initiative could not be enforced due to the refusal of the FBI to participate in the expanded background checks. Question 1 was designed to require background checks for firearm transfers between unlicensed individuals, also known as private-party sales, which would take place through the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICBCS). According to a letter from the FBI to Nevada, "the recent passage of the Nevada legislation [Question 1] regarding background checks for private sales cannot dictate how federal resources are applied." Furthermore, as of 2016, Nevada was one of 12 states with a state-run background checks system and did not depend on the FBI to perform existing background checks.^[1]^[2]^[3]

The FBI suggested that the Nevada Department of Public Safety's Criminal History Repository (CHR) conduct the background checks of private-party sales and transfers. However, Attorney General Laxalt concluded that such a move would violate the initiative's language. The CHR was responsible for other background checks in Nevada.^[4] Laxalt stated, "The Act is very specific that the only background check it authorizes for a private sale or transfer is directly through the FBI."^[5] The relevant text of the initiative read:^[6]

“

... the licensed dealer must contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System... and not the Central Repository, to determine whether the buyer or transferee is eligible to purchase and possess firearms under state and federal law. ... A licensed dealer... shall inform the seller or transferor and the buyer or transferee of the response from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.^[7]

”

Campaign on enforcement of Question 1

On October 4, 2017, the initiative support campaign, Nevadans for Background Checks, asked Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) to implement Question 1. The campaign said legal action would be taken if the governor did not take action to implement the initiative by October 9, 2017. Nevadans for Background Checks' attorney Mark Ferrario said the state could switch from a full point-of-contact state to a partial point-of-contact state, which would allow the FBI to perform the initiative's required background checks and the state CHR to perform other existing background checks.^[8]

On October 5, 2017, Kathryn Reynolds, the governor's general counsel, sent a letter to Attorney General Laxalt asking him to clarify whether Nevada can change its point-of-contact status and implement Question 1. ^[8]

On October 12, 2017, Attorney General Laxalt issued an opinion in response to the letter. He said that Gov. Sandoval can approach the FBI "with a proposed policy solution [to implement Question 1]." He also stated that using the FBI's system, rather than the state's, "would be trading a superior, safe system for an inferior, less comprehensive one."^[9]

Nevadans for Background Checks v. Sandoval and Laxalt

Nevadans for Background Checks filed litigation against Gov. Sandoval (R) and Attorney General Laxalt (R) in the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court on October 12, 2017.^[10] The lawsuit stated, "This case is about the refusal of the governor of Nevada to discharge one of his most fundamental constitutional obligations — to see that the laws of this state are faithfully executed."^[11] Gov. Sandoval and Attorney General Laxalt responded, saying the measure could not be enforced because the initiative was defective as written.^[12]

Judge Joe Hardy Jr. dismissed the case on August 20, 2018. He said plaintiffs' arguments were flawed and that evidence existed showing Gov. Sandoval and Attorney General Laxalt trying to negotiate with the FBI to implement Question 1.^[13]

Plaintiffs in the case appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court on September 19, 2018.^[14]

On February 12, 2019, Attorney General Aaron Ford (D), who succeeded Laxalt, said he would attempt to settle the lawsuit. He stated, "I think what’s important to note is this administration, as opposed to the last administration, believes that the Background Check Initiative is in fact enforceable. And so what we’re looking to do is to work with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to see the best way forward in order to make that happen." Attorney General Ford said the Nevada Department of Public Safety could use the Nevada Criminal History Repository for the background checks.^[15]

Election of Gov. Sisolak and AG Ford

On November 6, 2018, voters elected Steve Sisolak (D) to succeed term-limited Brian Sandoval (R) as the state's governor. Attorney General Laxalt (R) also ran for governor, losing to Sisolak.^[16] State Sen. Aaron Ford (D) was elected attorney general.^[17]

Gov. Sisolak and Attorney General Ford, both Democrats, said their offices would work with the federal government to enforce Question 1. Gov. Sisolak said, "We're going to try to get background checks implemented as quickly as we possibly can ‘cause that's important to me. It's important to the citizens. I think there's a way we can get to yes on the background checks and start working with the federal government." Attorney General Ford stated, "I will work with governor-elect Sisolak, the state legislature, law enforcement and the federal government to see that the will of the voters is done and we implement the background check initiative to keep guns out of the hands of criminals."^[18]

Senate Bill 143

On February 11, 2019, Senate Bill 143 (SB 143) was introduced into the Nevada State Legislature to amend Question 1. In Nevada, three years must pass before a ballot initiative can be amended or repealed. Question 1 was added to state code on November 22, 2016; therefore, SB 143 included a provision that made the bill take effect on January 2, 2020, which was after the three-year period.^[19]^[20]

SB 143, like Question 1, would require that an unlicensed person wishing to sell or transfer a firearm to another person conduct the transfer through a licensed gun dealer running a background check. SB 143 and similar types of legislation are often referred to as universal background checks, as transfers between unlicensed persons would join transfers between licensed persons in requiring background checks, with exceptions.^[19]

Question 1 would have required that background checks take place through the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICBCS). Attorney General Laxalt (R) said the initiative could not be enforced due to the refusal of the FBI to participate in the expanded background checks. SB 143 would require a state agency, instead of the FBI, to conduct background checks through the state’s criminal records repository.^[19]

The Nevada State Senate voted on SB 143 on February 13, 2019. The vote was 13 to eight, with the chamber's 13 Democrats voting to support SB 143 and eight Republicans voting to oppose the bill.^[19]

The Nevada State Assembly voted on February 14, 2019, passing the bill in a vote of 28 to 13. The chamber's Republicans, along with one Democrat, opposed SB 143, while the remaining 28 Democrats supported the bill.^[19]

On February 15, 2019, Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) signed Senate Bill 143 into law.^[19] He said, "In November 2016, the majority of Nevadans made it clear they wanted us to do more to address gun violence – but for the 829 days since, they’ve been ignored. That finally changes today."^[21]

Legislative alteration context

See also: Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives and Legislative alteration rules

From 2010 through 2018, 97 initiated state statutes and two initiated ordinances in D.C. were approved by voters. Of these 99 total initiatives from 2010 through 2018, 28 were repealed or amended as of April 2019. The states with the most total cases of legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010 were Maine—with four initiatives altered out of eight approved—and Colorado and Oregon—each with three initiatives altered out of five approved. Among initiatives approved from 2010 through 2018, marijuana was the topic that drew the most legislative alterations, with eight initiatives. Other topics addressed by legislatively altered initiatives included elections and campaigns, term limits, education, business regulation, law enforcement, minimum wage, taxes, and gambling.

The rate of legislative alteration was 13 percentage points higher for initiatives approved in 2016 and 2018 than initiatives approved from 2010 through 2015.

Legislative alteration rates
Year span	# approved	# altered	Alteration rate
2010 - 2024	175	30	17.14%
2016 - 2018	56	20	35.71%
2010 - 2015	43	9	20.9%

Click here for information about all legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010.

Election results

Question 1
Result	Votes	Percentage
a Yes	558,631	50.45%
No	548,732	49.55%

Election results from Nevada Secretary of State

Overview

Background checks in Nevada

Prior to voters approving Question 1, Nevada did not require background checks during transfers of firearms between unlicensed individuals. In 1993, the federal government enacted the "Brady Bill," which required licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks on unlicensed purchasers.^[22] However, unlicensed or private dealers, some of whom sell online, in person, or at gun shows, were exempt from the Brady Bill.^[23] In 2014, voters in Washington approved a similar initiative to Question 1 called Initiative 594.

Initiative design

Question 1 would have required that an unlicensed person wishing to sell or transfer a firearm to another person conduct the transfer through a licensed gun dealer running a background check. A licensed dealer would have been permitted to charge a "reasonable fee" for his or her service. The measure would have exempted certain transfers of firearms from background checks, including transfers by law enforcement agencies, between immediate family members, to executors of estates upon the death of the firearm’s owner, and of antique firearms. Some temporary transfers of firearms would have also been exempted, including transfers while hunting, at lawfully organized competitions, at public performances using firearms, and to prevent immediate death or great bodily harm. Question 1 would have provided that those found in violation of the law would be charged with a "gross misdemeanor," which could have resulted in a $2,000 fine, up to one year in prison, or both, depending on the results of a trial by jury.^[6]

State of ballot measure campaigns

Nevadans for Background Checks, the campaign supporting Question 1, outraised opponents three-to-one. Supporters received $19.8 million, and the three opposing committees raised $6.7 million. Everytown for Gun Safety, founded by Michael Bloomberg, provided 76 percent of supporters’ funds. The National Rifle Association provided 99.7 percent of opponents’ funds. Polls indicated that support for Question 1 was around 61 percent prior to the election. Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) opposed the measure.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The question that was on the ballot was as follows:^[24]

“

Shall Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended to prohibit, except in certain circumstances, a person from selling or transferring a firearm to another person unless a federally-licensed dealer first conducts a federal background check on the potential buyer or transferee?

Yes  No  ^[7]

”

Summary

The ballot summary was as follows: ^[24]

“

EXPLANATION—This ballot measure proposes to amend Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes to prohibit, except in certain defined circumstances, any person who is not a licensed dealer, importer, or manufacture of firearms from selling or transferring a firearm to another unlicensed person unless a licensed dealer first conducts a background check on the buyer or transferee. To request the required background check, the law would require both the seller/transferor and the buyer/transferee to appear jointly with the firearm before a federally licensed firearms dealer. The background check would be conducted using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and the federally-licensed dealer would be able to charge a reasonable fee for conducting the background check and facilitating the firearm transfer between unlicensed persons.

The measure would establish various exemptions to the mandatory background check requirements, including:

The sale or transfer of a firearm by or to any law enforcement agency;

To the extent he or she is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment and official duties, the sale or transfer of a firearm by or to any peace officer, security guard entitled to carry a weapon, member of the armed forces, and federal official;

The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;

The sale or transfer of a firearm between immediate family members, defined as spouses and domestic partners, as well as parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews, whether whole or half blood, adoption or step-relation; and

The transfer of a firearm to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm.

Certain temporary transfers of a firearm without a background check would also be allowed under the measure, as long as the temporary transfer is to a person who is not prohibited from buying or possessing a firearm under state or federal law, the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under state or federal law, and the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime. Allowable temporary transfers would include:

Temporary transfers required to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm;

Temporary transfers at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the range is located;

Temporary transfers at a lawfully organized competition involving the use of a firearm;

Temporary transfers while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as part of a public performance;

Temporary transfers while hunting or trapping if the transfer occurs in the area where hunting and trapping is legal and the transferee holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting or trapping; and

Temporary transfers while in the presence of the transferor.

Lastly, approval of this ballot measure would establish criminal penalties on an unlicensed person who sells or transfers one or more firearms to another unlicensed person in violation of the provisions of the measure. For the first conviction involving the sale or transfer of one or more firearms, the seller or transferor would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in county jail, a fine up $1,000, or both imprisonment and a fine. For the second and each subsequent conviction, the seller or transferor would be guilty of a category C felony, which is punishable by imprisonment between one and five years in state prison and a fine of not more than $10,000.

A “Yes” vote would amend Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes to prohibit, except in certain circumstances, any person who is not a licensed dealer, importer, or manufacture of firearms from selling or transferring a firearm to another unlicensed person unless a licensed dealer first conducts a background check on the buyer or transferee.

A “No” vote would retain the provisions of Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes in their current form. These provisions currently allow, but do not require, a background check be performed on a firearm buyer or transferee before the private sale or transfer of a firearm.

DIGEST— Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes contains provisions relating to crimes against public health and safety. Approval of this ballot measure would amend Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes to require that a federal background check be performed before private sales and transfers of firearms, except in certain defined circumstances. In order to obtain a required background check, both the firearm seller/transferor and the firearm buyer/transferee would be required to appear together before a federally licensed firearms dealer. The background check would be conducted using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and the federally-licensed dealer would be able to charge a reasonable fee for conducting the background check and facilitating the firearm transfer. A person who violates the new background check requirements would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor for the first offence and a category C felony for the second or subsequent offences. It is undetermined at this time whether approval of this ballot measure would have any impact on public revenue.

If this ballot measure is approved, the following sales or transfers would be exempt from the background check requirement: firearm sales or transfers between law enforcement agencies, peace officers, security guards, armed forces members, and federal officials; the sale or transfer of an antique firearm; the sale or transfer of a firearm between immediate family members; the transfer of a firearm to an estate or trust that occurs upon the death of the former owner of the firearm; temporary firearm transfers to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm; and temporary firearm transfers at authorized shooting ranges, at lawful firearm competitions, for use in public performances; while hunting or trapping, or while in the presence of the transferor.

Current Nevada law, found in Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, allows, but does not require, a private person who wishes to transfer a firearm to another person to request a background check from the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History on the person who wishes to acquire the firearm. If a background check is requested, the Central Repository has five days to perform the background check and notify the person who requested the background check if the receipt of a firearm by the person who wished to acquire the firearm would violate a state or federal law. The current law allows the Central Repository to charge a reasonable fee for performing a requested background check.^[7]

”

Full text

The full text of Question 1 can be found here.

Fiscal note

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal note was as follows:^[24]

“

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK INITIATIVE

FINANCIAL IMPACT – CANNOT BE DETERMINED

OVERVIEW

Question 1 proposes to amend various sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes to require that a background check be conducted by a licensed dealer before a firearm is transferred from one unlicensed person to another unlicensed person (private-party sales) under certain circumstances. Question 1 also establishes criminal penalties for violations of these provisions by unlicensed persons who sell or transfer firearms.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF QUESTION 1

Pursuant to the provisions of the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159), federally licensed firearm dealers are required to obtain a background check on an individual before a firearm may be purchased by that person. The law requires that the background check be conducted either directly through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or through a point of contact (POC) established within each state.

The Department of Public Safety has indicated that the Department’s Criminal History Repository (CHR) serves as Nevada’s POC based on the provisions of the Brady Act. As a result of this POC status, licensed firearm dealers contact the CHR to initiate background checks on retail firearm sales instead of contacting NICS directly. Currently, the CHR assesses a $25 fee for each background check that is conducted for this purpose.

The Department of Public Safety has indicated that passage of Question 1 would require a renegotiation of POC status or the development of an alternative agreement with the FBI in order to accommodate the provisions of the question. Based on this requirement, the Fiscal Analysis Division has identified three potential scenarios that could occur due to the implementation of Question 1:

1. If the agreement between the State and the FBI required the CHR to perform all background checks, it would result in additional expenditures of approximately $650,000 per year. However, the Department has estimated that the additional revenue that would be generated from the $25 fee imposed on the private-party background checks would be sufficient to defray these expenditures, which would result in no financial impact upon state government.

2. If the agreement between the State and the FBI allows licensed firearms dealers to contact NICS directly to conduct federal background checks for private-party sales, but allows the State to maintain POC status and continue to conduct background checks through the CHR for all other sales by licensed firearm dealers as is currently required by federal law, there would be no financial impact upon state government.

3. If the agreement between the State and the FBI removes Nevada’s POC status under the Brady Act, licensed firearms dealers would be required to contact NICS directly to obtain background check information for retail and private-party sales rather than contacting the CHR. The Department has indicated that, if licensed dealers are required to access NICS directly for background checks on all gun sales, this would result in the elimination of approximately 13 positions and a loss in revenue of approximately $2.7 million per year, which is used to support the current operations of the CHR. This loss in revenue would result in a negative financial impact upon state government, as additional revenue would be required from the State General Fund or other sources to supplant revenues used to support the CHR’s functions.

Because the Fiscal Analysis Division cannot determine what agreement may be reached between the Department and the FBI with respect to Nevada’s status as a POC state under the Brady Act, the resultant financial impact upon state government cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty.

The provisions creating misdemeanor and felony provisions for violations of the requirements of Question 1 may increase the workload of various state and local government agencies with respect to enforcement, investigation, incarceration, probation, and parole. The Department of Corrections, the Department of Public Safety, and the Fiscal Analysis Division are unable to determine the number of persons who may be investigated, prosecuted, or incarcerated as a result of violations of these provisions. Thus, the resultant financial effect upon state and local government cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty.

The provisions creating misdemeanor and felony provisions for violations of the requirements of Question 1 will require two changes to the Nevada Offense Codes used in the CHR. The Department of Public Safety has indicated that these changes can be accommodated with existing staff, and that no additional financial impact would be incurred by the Department.

Prepared by the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau – August 12, 2016^[7]

”

Support

Nevadans for Background Checks led the campaign in support of Question 1.^[25] Supporters received substantial financial backing from Everytown for Gun Safety, a group backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I).^[26]

Supporters

Officials

Mayor Hillary Schieve, Reno^[27]
District Attorney Steve Wolfson, Clark County^[28]

Former officials

Lt. Gov. Sue Wagner (I)^[29]
U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-1)
U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-4)
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-8) of Arizona^[30]
Sen. Justin Jones (D-9)
Rep. Richard Perkins (D-32)^[31]
Mayor Jan Jones Blackhurst, Las Vegas
Sheriff Bill Young, Clark County
Sheriff Mike Haley, Washoe County

Organizations

Council for a Better Nevada^[32]
Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers^[33]
Las Vegas Fraternal Order of Police^[31]
National Latino Peace Officers Association – Advocacy Group, Nevada Chapter^[34]
Nevada State Education Association^[35]
Nevada Parent Teacher Association
Latin Chamber of Commerce^[36]
Asian Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas PAC^[37]

Unions

Nevada State AFL-CIO^[38]
Culinary Workers Union, Local 226^[39]

Individuals

John R. Bailey, Managing Partner, Bailey Kennedy, LLP^[29]
Marybel Batjer, former Chief of Staff to Governor Kenny Guinn
Diana Bennett, Co-founder, Paragon Gaming
Sue Brooks, Leader, MOMs Demand Action, Nevada Chapter
Joe Brown, Director, Fennemore Craig
Yvanna Cancela, Culinary Workers Union Local 226
Radha Chanderraj, former member of Gaming Control Board
Jim Dunlap, President, National Association of Public Safety Officers
Dr. Robert E. Fowler, Sr., Victory Missionary Baptist Church
Adam Garcia, Police Chief, University of Nevada Reno Police
Myra Greenspun, Greenspun Media Group
Peter Guzman, President, Latin Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas – Nevada
Nick Hanauer, Washington venture capitalist^[40]
Kevin Hooks, President and CEO, Las Vegas Urban League
Dr. Ikram Khan, physician
Will Kemp, Founding Partner, Kemp, Jones & Coulthard LLP
Dave Kallas, Former President, Southern Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
Tom Kaplan, Senior Managing Partner, Wolfgang Puck Fine Dining Group
Mary Lau, President and CEO, Retail Association of Nevada
Joel Menchaca, Senior Pastor, Amistad Cristiana Church
Sue Meuschke, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
Sandy Miller, former First Lady of Nevada
Lesley Miller, Partner Kaempfer Crowell Law firm
Barbara Molasky, Molasky and Associates
Jenna Morton, Morton Restaurant Group
Alisa Nave, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Tim O’Callaghan, Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas
Sean Parker, Napster co-founder and former Facebook president
Richard Perkins, Former Speaker of the Assembly and Henderson Chief of Police
John Ritter, Focus Property Group
Sig Rogich, Rogich Communications Group
Ray Steiber, Retired, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Homicide
Elaine Sanchez, philanthropist
Phil and Jennifer Satre, philanthropists
Frank Schreck, Partner, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Ellen Schulhofer, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Stephanie Sibley, Nevada Legal Support Services
Todd Sklamberg, Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center
Donald Snyder, retired business executive
Elaine Wynn, Trustee, Elaine P. Wynn & Family Foundation
Steve Wynn, Wynn Resorts

Arguments

Ryan Saunders, a Las Vegas native and Iraq War Army veteran, wrote the following in a guest column in the Las Vegas Sun:^[41]

“

This common-sense measure will keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers and other dangerous people without infringing on the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners to purchase as many guns as they wish and use them for hunting, protection and sport.

Let’s be clear about what the Background Check Initiative does not do.

The initiative does not require a background check for the transfer of firearms among family members.
The initiative does not require a background check to temporarily lend a firearm to a friend for hunting or self-defense purposes.
The initiative does not affect transfers of antique firearms or transfers to executors of estates or trusts.
The initiative does not create a gun registry; doing so is illegal under federal law.
The initiative does not affect transfers by law enforcement, security officers or military personnel in the course of their official duties.
The initiative does not affect concealed-carry permit holders.^[7]

”

Reno, Nevada, Mayor Hillary Schieve endorsed Question 1, contending:^[27]

“

Recent events make clear that too many cities are grappling with the problem of gun violence and too many families have had loved ones killed by someone who should never have had a gun in the first place. This isn’t a political issue, it’s a public safety issue and closing the loophole will help reduce gun violence and make our communities safer. I’ve said many times that a safe city is a prosperous city and I want to add my voice to the call for sensible gun laws. That’s why I support Question 1, because it will make it harder for criminals to get guns without infringing on our constitutional rights. It won’t prevent every crime but it will save lives.^[7]

”

Richard McCann, executive director of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, claimed the measure would aid law enforcement. He said:^[33]

“

The bottom line is criminals must be prevented from acquiring guns in simple ‘no questions asked’ transactions. While not an absolute answer to this crisis, this Initiative is a further step that must be taken to counter gun violence in this state and in our nation. … Our law enforcement officers are not only the protectors of their communities in which they see violent acts occur every day, but they have themselves become targets of such violence. Any effort to curtail the sales of guns to criminal elements must be taken.^[7]

”

Official arguments

Matt Griffin and Elaine Wynn of Nevadans for Background Checks, along with Justin Jones, wrote the argument in support of Question 1 found in the Nevada voter guide. Their argument was as follows:^[24]

“

Vote yes on Question 1.

Vote yes on Question 1 and close the loophole that makes it easy for convicted felons, domestic abusers, and people with severe mental illness to buy guns without a criminal background check.

It is illegal for these dangerous people to buy guns. That’s why criminal background checks are required for every gun sale from a licensed dealer. But no background check is required in Nevada if a person buys a gun from an unlicensed seller, including buying from a stranger they meet online or at a gun show.

Question 1 would create a level playing field where everyone would have to follow the same rules, whether they buy and sell at a gun store, at a gun show, or using the Internet.

Voting yes on Question 1 protects our rights and meets our responsibilities.

We have the right to bear arms. And with rights come responsibilities, including the responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, and the severely mentally ill.

Question 1 won’t stop all gun violence—nothing will. But in states that require criminal background checks for all handgun sales, almost 50% fewer police are killed with handguns and about half as many women are shot to death by abusive partners.

Since 1980, over 50% of police officers murdered with guns in the line of duty in Nevada were shot by people who would have likely failed a background check.

There are more than 35,000 guns for sale in Nevada each year on just four websites—and no background check is required for most of these sales. Question 1 closes these loopholes.

No Nevada tax dollars will be used to conduct Question 1 background checks because the checks will be run by the FBI.

The Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers and Las Vegas Fraternal Order of Police— representing thousands of law enforcement officers—urge yes on Question 1.

Nevada doctors, crime victims, the Nevada Parent Teacher Association, and the Nevada State Education Association all agree—passing Question 1 will help save lives.

We need to close this dangerous loophole and make sure criminal background checks are required on all gun sales in Nevada. Please vote yes on Question 1.^[7]

”

Campaign advertisements

The following video advertisements were produced by Nevadans for Background Checks:^[42]

Nevadans for Background Checks' "It Works"

Nevadans for Background Checks' "Stopped"

Nevadans for Background Checks' "Too Easy"

Opposition

Nevadans for State Gun Rights and Vote No On Question 1 led the campaign in opposition to Question 1.^[43]^[44] Vote No On Question 1 was a project of the National Rifle Association.